On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Rainer Müller <rai...@macports.org> wrote: > On 2011-03-01 03:47 , Arno Hautala wrote: >> and annoyingly: >>> $ /opt/local/bin/file /usr/bin/file /opt/local/bin/file >>> /usr/bin/file: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures >>> /opt/local/bin/file: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures > > Interesting, I get different results: > > $ port -q installed file > file @5.05_0 (active) > $ /opt/local/bin/file --version > file-5.05 > magic file from /opt/local/share/misc/magic > > $ /usr/bin/file /usr/bin/file /opt/local/bin/file > /usr/bin/file: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures > /usr/bin/file (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable > x86_64 > /usr/bin/file (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386 > /opt/local/bin/file: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 > $ /opt/local/bin/file /usr/bin/file /opt/local/bin/file > /usr/bin/file: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures > /opt/local/bin/file: data >
I'm seeing exactly the same output. If I drop back to 5.04, it works again; I suspect that the bug report that Ryan linked to is probably the same issue, although they don't mention the additional inability to recognize skinny Mach-O files. > > The sources for the Apple provided file command is here: > http://opensource.apple.com/source/file/file-39/ > > Would someone care to compare the sources and magic file? > > Rainer > _______________________________________________ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users > _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users